\section{Scientific Considerations}
\label{sec:considerations}

In this section we want to examine the research philosophy; it will help us to take a position on the subject matter and how to develop knowledge in this field. After that we can discuss the type of scientific research approach whether it is deductive or inductively oriented. Throughout this section we will use the book \textit{``Research Methods for Business Students''} by \cite{SAUNDERS} as our main reference.

\subsection{Research Philosophy}
The reason for reflecting on the underlying philosophy is that it determines how we can justify our choice of data gathering method.

\begin{quote}
\textit{``Different philosophies are 'better' at doing different things. As always, which is 'better' depends on the research question(s) you are seeking to answer.''} \citep[pp. 108-109]{SAUNDERS}
\end{quote}

\noindent And so, the research question is the main determinant of the philosophy. We have argued that we are dealing with a transition, and the theory presented in chapter \ref{chap:theory} states that a transition happens at socio-technical landscapes and transversely to socio-technical regimes. Therefore we can argue that our research is centred around a \textit{subjective}, social constructionist ontology, where 

\begin{quote}

\textit{``...it is necessary to explore the subjective meanings motivating the actions of social actors in order for the researcher to be able to understand these actions.} \citep[p. 111]{SAUNDERS}

\end{quote}

\noindent This implies that we cannot explore the \textit{reality} of the subject matter, but we are able construct a meaning on the basis of main actors in the field of Internet architecture research. On the other hand it might seem obvious to argue that the problems with the current Internet architecture are of \textit{objective} existence and so are the barriers of a transition to ICN. In this case we have to remember that the gap between the Internet application and its underlying architecture is constructed from individual biases and that other research contradict these, e.g. \cite{ODLYZKO}. \bigskip

\noindent We, as researching students, also have to beware if we characterize ourselves as observers where we want to describe a situation without letting any prejudice influence and color it - or if we are doing a slightly more subjective research where the purpose mostly is to substantiate our bias and hypotheses.

We have inevitably been influenced by all the articles and papers regarding the problems with the current Internet architecture, and so - even if we want to act as observers - we have been biased. Still we argue that it is possible for us to have an observer role, and in the epistemology subsection we explain how we can collect data and process it from an observer perspective.

\subsubsection{Epistemology}

\noindent Regarding the type of knowledge we want accept in our research - the epistemology - we want to approach it from a \textit{critical realist} perspective, which goes hand in hand with the acknowledgement of social constructionism. The critical realist 

\begin{quote}
\textit{``... will only be able to understand what is going on in the social world if we understand the social structures that have given rise to the phenomena that we are trying to understand. In other words, what we see is only part of the bigger picture.''} \citep[p. 115]{SAUNDERS}
\end{quote}

\noindent In our research we acknowledge that what we investigate can only be a part of a bigger picture and, with that in mind, our data gathering can have a phenomenological point of departure, where our own prejudices will evolve in accordance to the data that we can qualitatively collect. This leans heavily on symbolic interactionism, where 

\begin{quote}
\textit{``... we are in a continual process of interpreting the social world around us [...] in that we interpret the actions of others with whom we interact and this interpretation leads to adjustment of our own meanings and actions.''} \citep[p. 115]{SAUNDERS}
\end{quote}

\noindent From this point of view, we can say that our analysis probably will lead to answers to our research question, which reflect that we have been through a process of re-biasing, and thereby are able to give a more qualified identification and explanation of the characteristics of the barriers to a transition to ICN. We thereby admit that we are in fact biased, even though we want to act as observers, and a valid result of this research is then to observe \textit{how much} and in \textit{which direction} our biases have changed after having processed some collected data through an in-depth analysis. \bigskip

\noindent Now we have revealed that we will use a qualitative data gathering method, and we will come back to that in section \ref{sec:interview}.

\subsection{Research Approach}

The research approach defines how we want to construct our research and forces us to reflect upon the nature of the research result. Basically it is a question on whether we will construct new theory based on our gathered data (induction) or deduct an adduced hypothesis (deduction) \citep[p. 124]{SAUNDERS}. \bigskip

\noindent In chapter \ref{chap:problemarea} we argued that there must be some barriers to a transition to ICN, and one can argue that this hypothesis was induced from existing literature and secondary data. We could have done a more thorough quantitative data collection by asking a considerable amount of Internet stakeholders indirectly about the barriers to transition to ICN, and then the result of our research would probably be a tested theory about Internet transition.

Instead we are using the hypothesis as a basis of our research: we want to test it and explain the reasons for it. And so, we are arguably also doing a deductive kind of research, where we test the combination of theory (transition theory) and gathered data. It is a difficult discussion of whether our research is inductive or deductive. We both want to \textit{confirm} the hypothesis that there are barriers to a transition to ICN and through observation we want to \textit{generalize} and \textit{describe} describe the barriers and thus maybe come up with a tentative hypothesis. Thereby the research approach becomes \textit{abductive} by nature. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy \citep{ABDUCTION} provides this definition of abduction:

\begin{quote}

\textit{``Given evidence E and candidate explanations H\textsubscript{1}, ..., H\textsubscript{n} of E, infer the truth of that H\textsubscript{i} which best explains E.''} \citep{ABDUCTION}

\end{quote}

\noindent In our case, \textit{E} will be the induced fact that there must be barriers to a transition to ICN, and then we will try to find good explanations for that. Now the hypothesis is turned into a fact, which we investigate, and thereby we are moving a bit away from deduction. They furthermore write, that

\begin{quote}
\textit{``... it is often said that the [best explanation] must appeal to [...] coherence with well-established theories...''} \citep{ABDUCTION}
\end{quote}

\noindent So, this is why we base our research on the theoretical framework presented in chapter \ref{chap:theory}. Following this, we will hopefully end up with good explanations of why we have not gone through a transition to ICN yet and what hinders it. 

If the analysis yields disappointing results, which does not live up to our hypothesis or cannot sufficiently answer the research question, there is a possibility that we can elaborate on some \textit{inductions} from our gathered data and thereby make qualified suggestions for further research. \bigskip

\noindent Summarizing, our research is mostly as an \textit{exploratory} study, which \textit{``is particularly useful if you wish to clarify your understanding of a problem, such as if you are unsure of the precise nature of the problem.''} \citep[p. 139]{SAUNDERS} This is particular important for the choice of qualitative research method, which we will discuss now.

